Lacrosse Magazine tackled 30 days worth of fall ball questions
over the last six weeks, and we hope you enjoyed our best attempts
to answer them, while having some fun and providing insight and
information on a variety of topics on all levels of the game.

To conclude our 30 in
30 series, the LM staff has one more question to
answer: Now that fall ball is over, what do you expect to see in
the spring?

Here's what we think. Tell us what you think in the comments
section below or on Twitter @LacrosseMag using the hashtag
#30in30.

Matt Forman

Men's Division I

I expect to see… At least one player no one is talking
about among the five Tewaaraton Award finalists honored in
Washington, D.C., at the Museum of the American Indian. To varying
degrees of surprise, Peter Baum, Will Manny and Mike Sawyer emerged
from under-the-radar status last spring. I
gave you a list of 20 candidates on Monday, on which
purposefully no team had two nominees. Here are a few more to keep
your eye on: Jake Hayes (Robert Morris), Miles Thompson (Albany),
Todd Heritage (Bucknell), John Glesener (Army), Danny Eipp
(Harvard). And doubling-up on teams from Monday’s list: Scott
Ratliff (Loyola), Owen Blye (Maryland), Matt Kavanagh (Notre Dame),
Christian Walsh (Duke), Ryan Tucker (Virginia), Eric Law (Denver),
Matt Poillon (Lehigh), Rob Guida (Johns Hopkins), Ryan Walsh
(Colgate), JoJo Marasco (Syracuse).

I expect to see… Two teams no one is talking about make
the NCAA tournament as at-large bids, and that
counts the five darkhorse contenders we highlighted earlier this
fall. Just like Loyola, Colgate and Yale last year,
we’ll see teams exceed preseason expectations and make
postseason noise. A few more teams who might fit the bill:
Georgetown, Penn, Drexel, Army and Albany.

I expect to see… Two from this group – Johns
Hopkins, Virginia, Syracuse and Cornell – make the final
four. You’ve heard the stat before: 2012 was the first since
1975 the NCAA tournament semifinals that the Blue Jays, Cavaliers
and Orange did not make Memorial Day Weekend, and Cornell
didn’t either. It’s a trend that won’t continue.
Too much senior leadership and talent at Hopkins, too much midfield
dynamism at Virginia, too much defense (among the nation’s
best) at Syracuse, too much Rob Pannell and Co. at Cornell.

I expect to see… First-year
varsity program Marquette win at least four games, and
not because the Golden Eagles’ schedule is a breeze. Coach
Joe Amplo and his well-regarded staff have put together a
challenging cross-country carousel that includes: Duke, Denver,
Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgetown and others. But after practicing
everyday last year without competing, and putting on a strong
showing this fall, Marquette is going to surprise some people.
Meanwhile, fellow freshman program High Point (N.C.), like Michigan
last year, will win one game.

I expect to see… The
new rules governing stall warnings to be enforced
sparingly, especially early in the season. The
increased burden placed on officials, and the potential for ensuing
confusion and discontent, will make them reluctant to signal for a
stall warning. Eventually, this will reach a boiling point on the
sport’s biggest stage, which will make the
modified-soft-shot-clock system only a stepping stone to a hard,
visible shot clock by fall 2013, a full year before the next
scheduled rules committee meetings.

I expect to see… At least half of these predictions make
me look foolish come June.

The most obvious candidates to get a boost from the field of 26
are the conference champions of the eight leagues who previously
did not get automatic qualifiers – Atlantic 10, Big South,
CAA, MAAC, MPSF, National Lacrosse Conference, NEC and the Patriot
League. (The ACC, America East, ALC, Big East and Ivy League
already had AQs.)

Even if you figure the ACC and ALC also-rans will eat up a good
portion of the 13 at-large bids, small-conference teams still have
a better shot at a bid. And where there are bids, there will
eventually be upsets.

What if, say, the 2012 tournament had room for Cornell? The Big
Red beat Loyola (an NCAA quarterfinalist) and Canisius (MAAC champs
and NCAA play-in team) in the regular season. Cornell’s
offense averaged more than 14 points per game, and for geographic
reasons, it might have drawn an early-round matchup against
Syracuse.

Suddenly those bubble teams become potential giant slayers, and
we all have more great games to watch. It’s not just the
tournament itself that will be affected, either. The increased
chance of making the Dance will infuse conference playoffs and
regular season games with excitement that wouldn’t be there
otherwise. Players will play harder. Coaches will raise their game.
Athletic departments will pay more attention to the sport, and by
attention, I mean money. If you believe in trickle-down economics,
the larger NCAA field is a very big deal.

If 26 isn’t a number that gets you excited, here’s
another one that’s pretty cool: 100. For the first time ever,
there will be 100 teams competing in Division I women’s
lacrosse. There were 92 in 2012, and in 2013, we’ll see the
debut of Southern California, Marquette, Delaware State, Coastal
Carolina, Winthrop, Stetson, Campbell and Kennesaw State.
That’s eight new teams in seven different states. It’s
a great big world out there, laxers.

Jac Coyne

Men's Division II

The expansion of the tournament to eight teams in 2013
won’t mean a whole lot in terms of the final outcome.
We’re going to see two very familiar faces in Philly,
especially considering the way the two regions have been
gerrymandered. The new format is going to revolutionize the
Division II regular season, however.

Instead of coaches playing small ball while concocting their
schedules, doing everything they can do to minimize their exposure
to a season-killing loss, we’re finally going to have a
scenario where the best teams are eager to play each other. Why?
Because with the addition of more bids, as well as an RPI component
in the selection process, means a.) one loss won’t kill you,
and b.) there is now such a thing as a good loss.

The perfect example of the new mindset is the rekindling of the
Adelphi-LIU-Post rivalry. A Long Island classic, the AU-Post tilt
hasn’t been played since ’09, when Adelphi jumped to
the Northeast-10 from the ECC because neither team could afford to
take a non-conference, in-region setback. But now it’s back,
and all is right again.

Furthermore, the entire 2013 D-II schedule will be filled with
outstanding games, unlike years past when the non-conference slate
was filled with snoozers, with a smattering of premium contests.
Now, we’re going to have high-end tilts every weekend, which
is good for the teams, good for the fans, and good for the
division. And much more fulfilling for those who cover the
sport.

It has been a long time coming, but it’s a brand new world
for Division II. This season is going to open the eyes of casual
fans to what the NCAA’s middle child truly has to offer.
I’m betting that the 2013 regular season is going to be the
best one that D-II has ever seen.

High hopes and fall ball go together like peas and carrots, and
this year was no different. The numerous coaches I’ve spoken
with this autumn (and a little bit over the summer) are all aiming
very high. Some of them should be, while others are a tad overly
optimistic. Still, it’s a very rejuvenating experience.

When considering that one team has won seven of the last 10
national championships, it’s easy to disregard fall hopes.
Despite sponsoring the most teams, Division III has been the most
predictable – an odd juxtaposition entirely caused by
Salisbury’s hegemony. Will anything change?

Yes, actually, I think it will. While still formidable, the Sea
Gulls will have one of its toughest rebuilding efforts in recent
memory, opening the door for a host of new teams to have reasonable
aspirations to play on Memorial Day weekend.

It starts in the South region (aka, the Salisbury Invitational),
where Stevenson, Cabrini, Dickinson, Lynchburg and maybe even
Denison are all legitimate threats to represent Dixie. Throw in the
North, which is wide open despite Cortland’s success last
year, and we’re talking 10 to 12 teams with reasonable
expectations of playing in late May.

One could argue that predicting anything but a championship game
featuring Salisbury vs. “TBA” is as quixotic as
the many second tier programs that see their fall as a harbinger of
a postseason success. Perhaps it is, but if it doesn’t happen
this year, it’s not going to happen any time soon.

MCLA

The 2013 campaign is going to be a bridge year for the
association. All of the buzz from Michigan’s transition to
Division I and the national tournament move to Greenville is in the
rearview mirror while the next big change isn’t likely to
come until 2014. This spring is just going to be business as usual
for the MCLA.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. While Colorado State
is the presumptive favorite, there are six other Division I teams
that could either unseat the Rams, or at least meet them in the
national championship game. That kind of diversity is better than
most years. Division II is going to be more predictable, with
anything short of a rematch between St. Thomas and Grand Valley
State being a stunning development. On the positive side, last
year’s championship game featuring those two was a
classic.

Will there be any big organizational developments in the
association during the bridge year? We’ll find out midseason
whether the national tournament will stay in Greenville for the
’14 season or move someplace new. In addition, the MCLA is
flush with cash and has an executive board always pondering big
ideas, so there could be some ‘outside the box’
concepts adopted before May rolls around.

One of the compelling parts of the MCLA is the constant change,
but 2013 should be a relatively quiet year for the association.

Last season, 16 out of 61 Division I men’s programs
reached the NCAA tournament. That’s 26 percent. On the D-I
women’s side it was 16 out of 92. Tougher, 17 percent, but
still nothing like the monumental task of reaching the NCAA
tournament in Division II.

Last season 67 Division II women’s teams competed for six
NCAA spots. That’s about 9 percent. Even Major League
Baseball in the pre-Wild Card era wasn’t so stingy with it
postseason invitations.

This year’s switch to an eight-team tournament will remedy
that, to an extent. But more players are choosing Division II and
the level is growing rapidly from several directions. The talent at
the top is deeper than ever and the middle teams are narrowing the
talent gap. Eight could be an outdated number as soon as this
May.

Going to a four-team-from-each-region model will hopefully
eliminate awkward situations such as last season, when Adelphi won
the Northeast-10 tournament, arguably D-II’s toughest task,
yet had to play a first-round road game against eventual champ, and
local rival, LIU-Post. But it could create greater frustration as
more teams end up just short.

If the current model was in place last season, Stonehill would
have been the North’s fourth team, with New Haven barely
missing out. New Haven beat eventual champion Post during the
season and ended up losing five games by a combined seven goals,
all against top 10 teams. If a team, such as New Haven, has a New
Haven-like 2013, staying home will sting even worse.

The NE-10 alone has five or six teams with legitimate NCAA
aspirations. Add in defending LIU-Post, typically a tournament
lock, and potential strong seasons from Dowling, Molloy or Queens
(N.Y.) and the North could again have more contenders sitting out
than dancing.

As of now the South looks clearer. Rollins, Limestone, West
Chester and Lock Haven seem like four easy choices. But Bloomsburg,
Mercyhurst and Indiana (Pa.) have already proved the PSAC is more
than a two-team league. If geographical outliers like Florida
Southern, St. Leo, Lindenwood or Regis make the leap, it’s
suddenly a very crowded playoff picture.

In short: It’s going to get better, but for those left
out, it’s going to feel worse.

Women's Division III

While Division II’s regular season will matter more than
ever, look for another great postseason in Division III, which does
the tournament right. The NCAA’s largest division sent 31
teams to the dance last season.

In the 2013 tournament expect an increased number of interesting
first-round games, especially the geographically clustered ones
where Midwest squads, like Adrian and Denison, and California
teams, like Occidental and Redlands, face off. Also expect the team
that wins to have a fighter’s chance when it comes back east
for Round 2.

Beyond that, once again, any of D-III’s top 10 teams
should have a chance to win it all.

Some interesting questions that will play out: Can Salisbury go
undefeated in the regular season again? How do Cortland, TCNJ and
Gettysburg fare after graduating franchise-changing players? Can a
young Franklin & Marshall team re-emerge as a top 10 contender?
Who survives the always-brutal NESCAC regular season? Do we see a
Trinity vs. Salisbury rematch in the title game?

If you want me to channel my best Miss Cleo only five months
removed from Loyola making every page of every preseason
publication look to be worth less than the paper it’s printed
on, think again. I’m protecting myself this year by offering
only five fearless predictions:

Bill Tierney will yell at a ref.

Rob Pannell will score a few goals.

ESPN will do a tear-jerker Casey Carroll profile.

Johns Hopkins messageboard posters will have at least one
mid-season breakdown.

But I’m not kidding when I say it’s frighteningly
premature at this point to start guessing where teams and players
stand (and something I’ll gladly leave to Forman). Loyola
short-stick defensive midfielder Josh Hawkins and long-stick Scott
Ratliff, the two most important players in last year’s
postseason, were preseason unknowns.

If there’s one certainty in Division I college lacrosse,
it’s that coaches copy each other with lemming-like ferocity.
If one coach starts outsourcing to Canadians, 10 others buy plane
tickets to Toronto and start combing Oshawa rinks for talent. If
one guy gets a commitment from a 14-year-old, the rest start
recruiting Garden City (N.Y.) JV games too. If one coach draws up
an offense that relies mostly on picks, slips and two-man games,
you better believe others are watching John Stockton and Karl
Malone YouTube videos for creative inspiration.

What I’m most interested in seeing is something no one can
predict: how the rule changes will impact the
game. Will the quicker tempo and shot clock benefit
glory programs like Virginia and Carolina which have a whole stable
full of athletes who can run by their guy? Or will it give an
unfair advantage to rogue outfits like Denver and Robert Morris
chock full of Canucks already acclimated to a faster pace? Or will
teams having to initiate offense quickly make defensive-oriented
grinders like Notre Dame and Lehigh that much tougher to score
against?

I have no idea what’s in store. And I can’t wait to
find out.

Corey McLaughlin

I had the benefit of reading all of the above responses before
writing this piece, and what struck me is the “growth of the
game” theme that is the most common among them.

This is along the lines of what I was planning to write anyway;
about what I expect to see come spring. In a time where job
retention, much less growth, is so uncertain, lacrosse just keeps
growing and growing and growing, creating all sorts of things along
the way. From the number of teams competing in the NCAA at all
levels, to US Lacrosse members, to youth players picking up the
sport for the first time, to the number of states and countries
that now have a significant number of players, it’s all
increasing and shows no sign of stopping.

Maybe it’s because Election Day is nearing and cable
television has constantly bombarded me with political messaging
over the past couple months, but lacrosse is unique in its place in
America. It’s a boom market.

But with this growth comes great responsibility.

How do we manage the game, keep its roots with the past while
tinkering with rules to make it more appealing to a general
audience? Is it really that hard to accept an all-out shot
clock?

What is the realistic timeframe for a team to win a national
championship, and is it fair to thrust so much pressure on coaches
and 18- to 22-year-old players to win it before they are fired or
graduate? (Am I the only one who continues to remember than only
one team wins its respective national championship each year?)

Why in the world are 14- and 15-year-olds committing to college
lacrosse programs? Do they realize that they won’t graduate
college for another seven years and, at least at the Division I
men’s level, their coach probably will be gone by the time
four years on campus is up, for any number of reasons? I looked
back at a picture of myself as a 14-year-old recently and, good
gosh, was I in no position to pick a college for myself.

It’s something that Duke men’s coach John Danowski
will often ask out loud: To what end? To what end does lacrosse
keep growing? It’s a deep question, and probably an
unanswerable one, but important to keep in mind as lacrosse follows
the path of other traditional American sports. I hope to see the
lacrosse community continue to address these topics come spring and
beyond.